Film: Homo Toxicus Director: Carole Poliquin Year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This films central argument was humans are filling themselves with toxic chemicals. This is being done inadvertently by large corporate chemical companies such as makeup companies, beef hormone companies, insecticide and fertilizer companies and a variety of others. The film discusses the governments, corporations and consumers individual roles in the problem, and argues that unless we change something we will cause irreversible damage to ourselves and our environment.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film starts out by talking about Inuit tribes and their mercury content. Because of their diet, Inuit’s are exposed to more mercury and other chemicals than the average individual; they have the highest mercury content of any group of people on the planed. The film then tries to draw a correlation between this fact and learning disabilities among children in the community. It details some of the health problems, such as being hard of hearing of being diagnosed with ADD, which are common among these children. Another topic discussed is the fact that instead of strengthening these children’s immune systems the way which bacteria and virus’ do, these chemicals are instead weakening them. BCP’s are also mentioned, and are suggested to be part of the problem with the children as well. All of this is caused by large corporations and their disrespect for the power these chemicals have to alter human beings. Another subject the film discusses was the health of those at an Indian reservation in Canada right outside of a huge chemical plant owned and operated by Socar Chemical Co. (sp?) This town has reported many health abnormalities. Firstly, there are twice as many girls as boys borne to the community. This is completely irregular from the societal average of 51 percent girls and 49 percent boys. Another issue involves miscarriages, as women tend to have a much higher than average amount in their lifetime. These are two major issues among many thousands of others; cancer rates are higher, respiratory illness is much higher than average, headaches and migraines are common, etc. Although the Socar has denied that any of these extremely bizarre abnormalities have anything to do with their company, it seems obvious where one would draw conclusions. Another subject which was covered throughout the second half of the film had to do with sperm count in male species. In amphibians, for instance, frogs found in streams and runoffs where certain pesticides had been used were found to have a much lower sperm count than elsewhere. The film tries to blame Atrazine, a pesticide recently taken off of the market in Canada for its potential health risks. One farmer himself talked about the fact that he too has a lower sperm count, even after living outdoors his entire life. Although the doesn’t know exactly what the cause is, he does know the farms all around where he was razed use chemicals such as Atrazine on their crops. At the end of the movie there is a scene in which many household foods are displayed on a street in Canada, and each of them is labeled not by their actual name but by the name of the nasty chemicals which are claimed to be in them. Hormones were popular amongst makeup and meat of all varieties, whereas pesticides and fertilizers were found in all of the fruits, vegetables and grains. Although the chemical companies that create these staunchly support the notion that their chemicals are harmless, the facts presented in the film may point to a different story. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? Being a man myself, the notion of infertility alone is enough to scare me. To see this farmer talking about how he might not be able to have children because of chemicals he was exposed to as a kid, even though he was born and raised outdoors on a farm, was a little disconcerting as well. Although pesticides and fertilizers are far more abundant where he grew up than where I live, the concept that chemical exposure can cause such a life changing biological alteration is a scary notion indeed. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Some of the less convincing arguments involved the Montreal school, where 3/8ths of the children have serious allergies and more and more are being diagnosed with ADD and autism. Although this is an issue which needs to be addressed causes to these conditions can more likely be attributed to changes in diagnosis than chemicals. The reason more and more kids are being diagnosed with ADD is more likely due to the fact that the criteria for the condition has been changed so much and the methods we have for determining whether somebody has it are getting better and better. The correlation between chemicals and this issue was lost for me.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film is great for anybody who exposes themselves to chemicals on a regular basis. A person who wears heavy makeup, for instance, or exposes themselves to lots of garden fertilizer, would greatly benefit by the knowledge being presented in this film.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I thought the film could have done more find good, un-harmful chemicals or other alternatives, or made the case that the chemicals aren’t needed to begin with. Instead of touting simply how bad all of these things are, determining a method for fixing it or alternatives would have given the film a better light.
What kinds of actions and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film suggests many things one can do as a consumer. Instead of looking for the cheapest type of tomato in the grocery store, for instance, why not try a pesticide/fertilizer free organic one? Also when choosing makeup to purchase, checking he ingredients and the history of the company producing it might give one a more educated shopping experience, resulting in greater chance staying healthy.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
As my parents have always given me the most natural and chemical free lifestyle they could (I had Toms of Pain toothpaste always when growing up), most of the notions expressed by the film felt quite natural to me. The only area that concerned me involved PBDE’s potential residence in my pillow… I promptly checked to make sure my pillows were PBDE free.
Director: Carole Poliquin
Year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This films central argument was humans are filling themselves with toxic chemicals. This is being done inadvertently by large corporate chemical companies such as makeup companies, beef hormone companies, insecticide and fertilizer companies and a variety of others. The film discusses the governments, corporations and consumers individual roles in the problem, and argues that unless we change something we will cause irreversible damage to ourselves and our environment.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film starts out by talking about Inuit tribes and their mercury content. Because of their diet, Inuit’s are exposed to more mercury and other chemicals than the average individual; they have the highest mercury content of any group of people on the planed. The film then tries to draw a correlation between this fact and learning disabilities among children in the community. It details some of the health problems, such as being hard of hearing of being diagnosed with ADD, which are common among these children. Another topic discussed is the fact that instead of strengthening these children’s immune systems the way which bacteria and virus’ do, these chemicals are instead weakening them. BCP’s are also mentioned, and are suggested to be part of the problem with the children as well. All of this is caused by large corporations and their disrespect for the power these chemicals have to alter human beings.
Another subject the film discusses was the health of those at an Indian reservation in Canada right outside of a huge chemical plant owned and operated by Socar Chemical Co. (sp?) This town has reported many health abnormalities. Firstly, there are twice as many girls as boys borne to the community. This is completely irregular from the societal average of 51 percent girls and 49 percent boys. Another issue involves miscarriages, as women tend to have a much higher than average amount in their lifetime. These are two major issues among many thousands of others; cancer rates are higher, respiratory illness is much higher than average, headaches and migraines are common, etc. Although the Socar has denied that any of these extremely bizarre abnormalities have anything to do with their company, it seems obvious where one would draw conclusions.
Another subject which was covered throughout the second half of the film had to do with sperm count in male species. In amphibians, for instance, frogs found in streams and runoffs where certain pesticides had been used were found to have a much lower sperm count than elsewhere. The film tries to blame Atrazine, a pesticide recently taken off of the market in Canada for its potential health risks. One farmer himself talked about the fact that he too has a lower sperm count, even after living outdoors his entire life. Although the doesn’t know exactly what the cause is, he does know the farms all around where he was razed use chemicals such as Atrazine on their crops.
At the end of the movie there is a scene in which many household foods are displayed on a street in Canada, and each of them is labeled not by their actual name but by the name of the nasty chemicals which are claimed to be in them. Hormones were popular amongst makeup and meat of all varieties, whereas pesticides and fertilizers were found in all of the fruits, vegetables and grains. Although the chemical companies that create these staunchly support the notion that their chemicals are harmless, the facts presented in the film may point to a different story.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Being a man myself, the notion of infertility alone is enough to scare me. To see this farmer talking about how he might not be able to have children because of chemicals he was exposed to as a kid, even though he was born and raised outdoors on a farm, was a little disconcerting as well. Although pesticides and fertilizers are far more abundant where he grew up than where I live, the concept that chemical exposure can cause such a life changing biological alteration is a scary notion indeed.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Some of the less convincing arguments involved the Montreal school, where 3/8ths of the children have serious allergies and more and more are being diagnosed with ADD and autism. Although this is an issue which needs to be addressed causes to these conditions can more likely be attributed to changes in diagnosis than chemicals. The reason more and more kids are being diagnosed with ADD is more likely due to the fact that the criteria for the condition has been changed so much and the methods we have for determining whether somebody has it are getting better and better. The correlation between chemicals and this issue was lost for me.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film is great for anybody who exposes themselves to chemicals on a regular basis. A person who wears heavy makeup, for instance, or exposes themselves to lots of garden fertilizer, would greatly benefit by the knowledge being presented in this film.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I thought the film could have done more find good, un-harmful chemicals or other alternatives, or made the case that the chemicals aren’t needed to begin with. Instead of touting simply how bad all of these things are, determining a method for fixing it or alternatives would have given the film a better light.
What kinds of actions and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film suggests many things one can do as a consumer. Instead of looking for the cheapest type of tomato in the grocery store, for instance, why not try a pesticide/fertilizer free organic one? Also when choosing makeup to purchase, checking he ingredients and the history of the company producing it might give one a more educated shopping experience, resulting in greater chance staying healthy.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
As my parents have always given me the most natural and chemical free lifestyle they could (I had Toms of Pain toothpaste always when growing up), most of the notions expressed by the film felt quite natural to me. The only area that concerned me involved PBDE’s potential residence in my pillow… I promptly checked to make sure my pillows were PBDE free.